BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
As Amended April 21, 2014
Hearing Date: May 6, 2014
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Environmental Quality: Judicial Review: Standing
DESCRIPTION
Existing law requires a petitioner to exhaust his or her
administrative remedies before initiating an action or
proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul a public
agency's acts or decisions on the grounds of noncompliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA provides
that exhaustion of administrative remedies has not occurred
unless: (1) the alleged grounds for noncompliance were presented
to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during
the public comment period or prior to the close of the public
hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of
determination; and (2) the person seeking to bring suit objected
to the approval of the project orally or in writing during the
public comment period or prior to the close of the public
hearing on the project before the filing of the notice of
determination.
This bill would expand CEQA's exhaustion requirements by
precluding an individual from challenging a public agency's
compliance with the act if the alleged grounds of noncompliance
were known or could have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence during the public comment period, but the
alleged grounds of noncompliance were presented to the public
agency at a time other than during the public comment period.
This bill would also expand CEQA's exhaustion requirements by
precluding a person from challenging a public agency's
compliance if the person objected to the approval of the project
(more)
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageB of?
at a time other than during the public comment period when a
public comment period was provided.
BACKGROUND
Enacted in 1970, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requires state and local agencies (public agencies) to follow a
set protocol to disclose and evaluate the significant
environmental impacts of proposed projects and to adopt feasible
measures to mitigate those impacts. CEQA itself applies to
"projects" undertaken or requiring approval by public agencies,
and, if more than one agency is involved, CEQA requires one of
the agencies to be designated as the "lead agency." The
environmental review process required by CEQA consists of: (1)
determining if the activity is a project; (2) determining if the
project is exempt from CEQA; and (3) performing an initial study
to identify the environmental impacts and, depending on the
findings, prepare either a Negative Declaration (for projects
with no significant impacts), a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(for projects with significant impacts but that are revised in
some form to avoid or mitigate those impacts), or an
Environmental Impact Report (for projects with significant
impacts).
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must accurately describe
the proposed project, identify and analyze each significant
environmental impact expected to result from the proposed
project, identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to
the extent feasible, and evaluate a range of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed project. Prior to approving any
project that has received environmental review, an agency must
make certain findings pertaining to the project's environmental
impact and any associated mitigation measures. If mitigation
measures are required or incorporated into a project, the public
agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program to ensure
compliance with those measures. To enforce the requirements of
CEQA, a civil action may be brought under several code sections
to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the acts or
decisions of a public agency for noncompliance with the act.
Importantly, studies and reports prepared to comply with CEQA
are public documents, and CEQA includes procedures for agencies
to receive public comment on these environmental documents,
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageC of?
including draft EIRs and proposed Negative Declarations.<1>
CEQA requires lead agencies to respond to public comments if
they are received during the designated public comment period,
however comments may be offered at any point before a public
agency decides to approve a project, including during public
hearings to certify an EIR after the close of designated public
comment periods. The ability to offer comments after the close
of designated public comment periods can be used as a tactic -
colloquially known as "document dumping" - to delay public
agency decisionmaking or to preserve challenges to a project for
use in subsequent litigation.
On the other hand, there may be legitimate reasons why members
of the public offer comments on a project after the close of a
designated comment period, including when agency responses to
other comments reveal new information, when changes to the
project are proposed, and when corrections are made to draft
environmental documents. Additionally, some members of the
public might offer late comments because they were unaware of an
ongoing CEQA process or unaware that the designated public
comment period had closed.
In order to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul a public
agency's acts or decisions on the grounds of noncompliance with
CEQA, a petitioner must first exhaust his or her administrative
remedies. Exhaustion of administrative remedies has not
occurred under the act unless: (1) the alleged grounds for
noncompliance were presented to the public agency during the
public comment period or prior to the close of the public
hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of
determination; and (2) the person seeking to bring suit objected
to the approval of the project during the public comment period
or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project
---------------------------
<1> Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations provides:
Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process.
Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA
procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal,
consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in
order to receive and evaluate public reactions to
environmental issues related to the agency's activities. Such
procedures should include, whenever possible, making
environmental information available in electronic format on
the Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the
public agency. (14 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 15201.)
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageD of?
before the filing of the notice of determination.
This bill would expand CEQA's exhaustion requirements by
precluding an individual from challenging a public agency's
compliance with the act unless they both voiced their objection
to a project and provided the alleged grounds of noncompliance
to the agency during the public comment period, provided the
alleged grounds of noncompliance were known or could have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence during the
public comment period.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law , the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
requires a public agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared,
and to certify the completion of, an environmental impact
report (EIR) on a project that it proposes to carry out or
approve that may have a significant effect on the environment
or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the
project will not have that effect. (Pub. Resources Code Sec.
21100 et seq.)
Existing law provides that an action or proceeding to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a
public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA may be
commenced when, among other things, it is alleged that:
a public agency is carrying out or has approved a
project that may have a significant effect on the
environment without having determined whether the project
may have a significant effect on the environment;
a public agency has improperly determined whether a
project may have a significant effect on the environment;
an environmental impact report prepared by, or caused to
be prepared by, a public agency does not comply with CEQA;
a public agency has improperly determined that a project
is not subject to CEQA; or
another act or omission of a public agency does not
comply with CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code Sec. 21167.)
Existing law requires a public agency to prepare a record of
proceedings relating to the subject of an action or proceeding
to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul its acts or
decisions on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA. The
public agency's record of proceedings shall include, among
other things, any transcript or minutes of the proceedings at
which the decisionmaking body of the public agency heard
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageE of?
testimony on, or considered any environmental document on, the
project, and any transcript or minutes of proceedings before
any advisory body to the public agency that were presented to
the decisionmaking body prior to action on the environmental
documents or on the project. (Pub. Resources Code Sec.
21167.6.)
Existing law states that an action or proceeding to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a
public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA shall
not be brought unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance
were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by
any person during the public comment period provided by CEQA
or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project
before the issuance of the notice of determination. (Pub.
Resources Code Sec. 21177(a).)
Existing law states that a person shall not maintain an action
or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the
acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds of
noncompliance with CEQA unless that person objected to the
approval of the project orally or in writing during the public
comment period provided by CEQA or prior to the close of the
public hearing on the project before the filing of the notice
of determination. (Pub. Resources Code Sec. 21177(b).)
Existing law does not preclude any organization formed after
the approval of a project from maintaining an action or
proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the
acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds of
noncompliance with CEQA if a member of that organization has
complied with the above two provisions. Existing law provides
that the grounds for noncompliance may have been presented
directly by a member or by a member agreeing with or
supporting the comments of another person. (Pub. Resources
Code Sec. 21177(c).)
This bill would provide that an action or proceeding to
attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or
decisions of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance
with CEQA shall not be brought unless:
the alleged grounds for noncompliance with CEQA were
presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any
person during the public comment period provided by CEQA;
or
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageF of?
if the alleged grounds for noncompliance were not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of
reasonable diligence during the public comment period or if
no public comment period was provided, the alleged grounds
for noncompliance were presented to the public agency
orally or in writing by any person prior to the close of
the public hearing on the project before the issuance of
the notice of determination.
This bill would specify that the provision above does not
apply to an action or proceeding challenging a project for
which a public comment period has expired but the project
approval has not been granted on or before January 1, 2015.
This bill would provide that a person shall not maintain an
action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or
annul the acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds
of noncompliance with CEQA unless:
that person objected to the approval of the project
orally or in writing during the public comment period
provided by CEQA; or
if no public comment period was provided, that person
objected to the approval of the project orally or in
writing prior to the close of the public hearing on the
project before the filing of the notice of determination.
1.Existing law provides, until January 1, 2016, that an
organization formed after the approval of a project may not
maintain an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside,
void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency on the
grounds of noncompliance with CEQA without first having had a
member of that organization present the alleged grounds for
noncompliance to the agency during the public comment period
provided by this division or prior to the close of the public
hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of
determination.
This bill would eliminate this sunset provision and make the
above requirement permanent.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageG of?
Although well-intentioned, Public Resources Code [S]ection
21177 has resulted in unintended consequences since the 1993
legislation [codifying the exhaustion of administrative
remedies doctrine]. Specifically, over the past decade,
project opponents-including businesses, unions, environmental
groups, and others-have engaged in an increasingly used tactic
known as "document dumping." Document dumping occurs when
project opponents seek to intentionally delay project
approvals by submitting lengthy, detailed comment letters and
extensive documentation on the day of the public hearing
(i.e., the day the project is to be approved). These comments
and documentations typically contain entirely new claims and
allegations that had not-but indeed could have-been presented
during the designated public comment period on the draft
environmental document. Importantly, document dumping is used
by would be litigants for all types of project approvals,
including infill development, public works projects, hospital
construction and upgrades, school facilities, renewable energy
facilities, affordable housing developments, and others.
The reason parties are able to document dump is because, under
current Public Resources Code [S]ection 21177(a), parties are
permitted to present issues of any kind until the close of the
public hearing on the project, even if those issues could have
been presented earlier in the process.
SB 1451 would reduce the use of the document dumping tactic.
Specifically, the proposal would require comments to be
presented during the public comment period on the draft
environmental document, unless the comments could not have
been presented during the public comment period. Importantly,
under the proposal, any comments that could not have been
presented during the public comment period may be presented
after the public comment period and prior to the close of the
public hearing on the project. This will prevent commenters
from raising issues on the day of the hearing that could have
been brought earlier in the process, such as those related to
the initially circulated draft environmental document, and
then suing on those issues in court. This change encourages
early public engagement and informed decision making and thus
preserves the overall function and purpose of CEQA.
Importantly, nothing in this proposal prevents interested
parties from making comments or raising issues to the lead
agency at any time during the environmental review process.
All parties remain empowered to petition decision makers and
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageH of?
make their concerns heard at hearings, in writing or otherwise
at any time. SB 1451 only places certain limitations on those
issues that may be raised in litigation following the project
approval.
2.Public Policy
When it passed CEQA in 1970, the Legislature declared that the
"maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this
state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern."
(Pub. Resources Code Sec. 21000(a).) CEQA's findings and
declarations expressly direct that "all agencies of the state
government which regulate activities of private individuals,
corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the
quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so
that major consideration is given to preventing environmental
damage . . ." (Pub. Resources Code Sec. 21000(g).) CEQA's
environmental review process gives effect to the policy of
giving major consideration to preventing environmental damage by
forcing public agencies to critically examine the environmental
impacts of proposed projects before approving them. The
California Supreme Court has recognized that CEQA's "purpose is
to inform the public and its responsible officials of the
environmental consequences of their decisions before they are
made," and in so doing "protects not only the environment but
also informed self-government." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 [citations
omitted].) CEQA exists "not to generate paper, but to compel
government at all levels to make decisions with environmental
consequences in mind." (Id. [citations omitted].)
CEQA, like many other statutes in environmental law, is
primarily enforced through litigation brought by private
parties. By expanding the scope of CEQA's existing
administrative exhaustion requirement, this bill may insulate
government decisionmaking from challenge when, despite knowing
of a potential significant impact to the environment, a public
agency nonetheless approves a project because it knows it is
effectively immune from suit. It is important to keep in mind
that the ultimate "duty of identifying and evaluating
potentially feasible project alternatives" and assessing the
environmental impact of a project "lies with the proponent and
the lead agency, not the public." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Bd. of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d at 568.) "Nowhere in CEQA is
there a provision that this duty is conditional on a project
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageI of?
opponent coming forward with a documented alternative" or with
information rebutting a public agency's findings and
conclusions. (Id. [citations omitted].) Forcing public
agencies to address public comments that raise genuine issues
during the environmental review process ultimately help these
agencies carry out their duties under CEQA, and to the extent
this bill undercuts the ability of members of the public to
challenge agency decisionmaking it may render this duty
essentially unenforceable.
SHOULD GOVERNMENT DECISIONMAKING BE IMMUNE FROM PUBLIC
CHALLENGE?
3.Necessity for bill
As discussed above, the stated purpose for this bill is to
prevent parties from intentionally submitting late comments or
objections during the environmental review process solely for
the purpose of delaying a project or public agency
decisionmaking. The California State Association of Counties,
writing in support, states:
Under current law . . . would-be petitioners do not have to
raise their arguments during the public comment period in
order to preserve them for review in court-comments can be
raised at any time up until the agency takes final action at
the hearing on the project. This has resulted in members of
the public submitting lengthy comments at the project hearing,
forcing lengthy delays in the process in order to
appropriately review and respond to those comments. Last
minute comments on a draft EIR[] can delay a public agency's
ability to consider and respond to the comments, and creates
additional costly delays for public agencies.
While the tactic of submitting late comments in order to delay a
project is a genuine problem recognized by the courts, see e.g.
Advocates v. City of Atwater (Cal.App.5th Dist. 2011) 2011
Cal.App. Unpub. LEXIS 2176, it appears that under current law
courts have sufficient resources at their disposal to address
this problem. The California Supreme Court has stated:
We cannot, of course, overemphasize our disapproval of the
tactic of withholding objections, which could have been raised
earlier in the environmental review process, solely for the
purpose of obstruction and delay. As one federal court has
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageJ of?
aptly stated: "[T]he NEPA requirement of studying alternatives
may not be turned into a game to be played by persons who-for
whatever reasons and with whatever depth of conviction-are
chiefly interested in scuttling a particular project."
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52
Cal.3d 553, 568.)
California's appellate courts have responded to this problem by
developing a "fair presentation" standard for determining when a
party has exhausted administrative remedies and may sue a public
agency for CEQA non-compliance. Under existing law, a
petitioner may not challenge a public agency's compliance with
CEQA when the grounds for challenge were not first "fairly
presented" to the agency. (Banker's Hill, Hillcrest, Park West
Community Preservation Group v. City of San Diego (Cal.App.4th
Dist. 2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 282.) In Citizens for
Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San
Diego, an appellate court used this "fair presentation" standard
to dismiss CEQA challenges to a project based on objections
brought late in the environmental review process by a group
(CREED) who dropped off thousands of documents shortly before a
public hearing. In relevant part, the court held:
Additionally, CREED cannot claim exhaustion by citing
documents buried among thousands of documents on the DVD it
submitted to the city clerk before the first CEQA hearing . .
. To satisfy the exhaustion doctrine, an issue must be "fairly
presented" to the agency. Evidence must be presented in a
manner that gives the agency the opportunity to respond with
countervailing evidence. The City cannot be expected to pore
through thousands of documents to find something that arguably
supports CREED's belief the project should not go forward.
Additionally, CREED did not appear at either CEQA hearing to
elaborate on its position. It appears from CREED's haphazard
approach that its sole intent was to preserve an appeal. "It
was never contemplated that a party to an administrative
hearing should make only a perfunctory or 'skeleton' showing
in the hearing and thereafter obtain an unlimited trial de
novo, on expanded issues, in the reviewing court." (Citizens
for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of
San Diego (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 528
[citations omitted].)
Cases such as Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental
Development v. City of San Diego indicate that California courts
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageK of?
can already address the problem of "document dumping" and the
practice of intentionally submitting CEQA objections late in the
environmental review process under existing law. Writing in
opposition, the Sierra Club of California states that "current
law and court practice indicate that this sort of late submittal
is neither common nor tolerated by the courts, and so additional
law on the subject is not needed." The Committee may want to
consider whether existing law already contains adequate remedies
to address CEQA challenges intentionally brought late in the
environmental review process.
DOES EXISTING LAW ALREADY SOLVE THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY THIS
BILL?
4.Limiting public participation
This bill would expand CEQA's existing administrative exhaustion
requirement by precluding individuals from challenging a public
agency's compliance with the act unless they both voiced their
objections to a project and provided the alleged grounds of
noncompliance to the agency during the public comment period,
provided the alleged grounds of noncompliance were known or
could have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence
during the public comment period. The League of California
Cities contends that:
SB 1451 seeks to make a moderate, but important change to the
comment period by requiring the alleged grounds for
noncompliance to be presented during the public comment
period. Encouraging comments early in the CEQA process
ensures that lead agencies can respond to issues and address
them going forward. SB 1451 also includes exceptions to the
requirement that comments be presented during the public
comment period such as no comment period being provided or in
the case where the comments couldn't have been presented
during the comment period because the information wasn't
available at the time. These exceptions seek to balance the
need for lead agencies to get information in a timely manner
and recognize that there may be instances where submitting
comments during the comment period is not always possible.
Despite the author's effort to balance the needs of public
agencies to receive comments and objections early in the
environmental review process with the right of citizens to
petition their government and present objections to proposed
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageL of?
projects, from a public policy standpoint the proposed changes
to CEQA's exhaustion requirements may undermine effective public
participation in the CEQA process. As noted above, CEQA is
enforced primarily through private litigation. Placing
restrictions on the ability of citizens to force agencies to
comply with CEQA based on whether or not they submitted their
comments or objections within a narrow window of time may
ultimately frustrate the effectiveness of CEQA's enforcement
structure. Further, as noted above, there may be legitimate
reasons why members of the public offer comments on a project
after the close of a designated comment period, including when
agency responses to other comments reveal new information or
perspectives, when changes to a project are proposed after the
close of public comment period, and when corrections are made to
draft environmental documents in response to comments. Some
members of the public might offer late comments because they
were unaware of an ongoing CEQA process or unaware that the
designated public comment period had closed.
As a matter of policy, members of the public who desire to
participate in the environmental decisionmaking process ought
not to be excluded from meaningful participation because they
lack familiarity with the CEQA process. Writing in opposition,
the Sierra Club of California notes that this bill "would hinder
the ability of the average citizen, one who is neither an
attorney nor heavily experienced in environmental review
processes, from fully and most effectively participating in the
environmental review process." Indeed, as drafted, this bill
might undermine the utility of public hearings held on a project
after the conclusion of the designated comment period. Would
this bill enable public agencies to disregard legitimate public
comments and objections offered at these hearings without fear
of recourse? Would this bill effectively prioritize elimination
of delay during the review process over meaningful public
participation?
DOES THIS BILL LIMIT MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS?
5.Elimination of Sunset
Until January 1, 2016, existing law states that an organization
formed after the approval of a project may maintain a CEQA
action if a member of that organization has both: (1) presented
the alleged grounds for noncompliance with CEQA to the public
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageM of?
agency during the public comment period or prior to the close of
the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the
notice of determination; and (2) objected to the approval of the
project during the public comment period or prior to the close
of the public hearing on the project before the filing of the
notice of determination. After January 1, 2016, existing law
would provide that an organization formed after the approval of
a project may maintain a CEQA action so long as a member of that
organization has objected to the approval of the project during
the public comment period or prior to the close of the public
hearing on the project before the filing of the notice of
determination - presenting the alleged grounds for noncompliance
to the agency would not explicitly be required as it is
currently. This bill would eliminate the existing sunset
provision and would make permanent the requirement presently in
force.
The author states that elimination of the sunset is warranted
because if a litigant need only comply with the requirement to
personally register an objection to the project, "then one's
mere participation in the environmental process would allow that
individual to form a group and sue on any issue at all, even if
that issue did not properly comply with the timing requirements
noted in the amendments. This could, in theory, render the
amendments meaningless."
6.Unintended Consequences
In order to bring a CEQA action, this bill would require a
petitioner to both present his or her alleged grounds of
noncompliance with CEQA to the public agency and object to the
approval of a project during the designated public comment
period if his or her alleged grounds of noncompliance were known
or could have been known with the exercise of reasonable
diligence during the comment period. As this requirement is
jurisdictional, it appears that this bill may preclude a CEQA
action premised on comments or objections made to a public
agency before the public comment period that are not
subsequently repeated during the public comment period.
Support : American Council of Engineering Companies; American
Institute of Architects; American Planning Association,
California Chapter; Associated General Contractors of America;
Bay Area Council; California Apartment Association; California
Association of Realtors; California Building Industry
Association; California Business Properties Association;
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageN of?
California Business Roundtable; California Chamber of Commerce;
California Hospital Association; California League of Food
Processors; California Manufacturers and Technology Association;
California Restaurant Association; California Retailers
Association; California State Association of Counties;
California Transit Association; Civil Justice Association of
California; Chambers of Commerce Alliance of Ventura and Santa
Barbara Counties; Chamber of Santa Barbara Region; Construction
Employers' Association; Fullerton Chamber of Commerce; Goleta
Valley Chamber of Commerce; Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of
Commerce; Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce; Greater
Riverside Chambers of Commerce; Independent Energy Producers
Association; Irvine Chamber of Commerce; Lake Elsinore Valley
Chamber of Commerce; League of California Cities; Monterey
Peninsula Chamber of Commerce; Murrieta Chamber of Commerce;
National Federation of Independent Business; Oxnard Chamber of
Commerce; Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce; Rural County
Representatives of California; San Francisco Chamber of
Commerce; San Gabriel Valley Legislative Coalition of Chambers;
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce; Santa Clara Silicon
Valley Central Chamber of Commerce; Silicon Valley Leadership
Group; Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce; South Shore Lake Tahoe
Chamber of Commerce; Southwest California Legislative Council;
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; Turlock Chamber of
Commerce; Urban Counties Caucus; Visalia Chamber of Commerce;
Ventura County Chamber of Commerce; West Coast Lumber and
Building Material Association
Opposition : California Labor Federation; California League of
Conservation Voters; California State Pipe Trades Council;
Center for Biological Diversity; Natural Resources Defense
Council; Planning and Conservation League; Sierra Club of
California; State Association of Electrical Workers; State
Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO; United Food
and Commercial Workers, Western States Council; Western States
Council of Sheet Metal Workers
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation :
SB 731 (Steinberg, 2013) would provide, among other things, that
aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageO of?
residential, or employment center project on an infill site
within a transit priority area shall not be considered
significant impacts on the environment under CEQA, as specified.
This bill is pending before the Assembly Committee on Local
Government.
Prior Legislation :
SB 743 (Steinberg, Ch. 386, Stats. 2013) established specified
administrative and judicial review procedures for review of the
EIR and public agency approvals granted for a project related to
the development of an entertainment and sports center in the
City of Sacramento. Additionally, this bill provides that
aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use
residential, or employment center project on an infill site
within a transit priority area shall not be considered
significant impacts on the environment under CEQA, as specified.
AB 2577 (Galgiani, 2012) would have provided that a public
agency does not have a duty to consider, evaluate, or respond to
comments received after the expiration of the public comment and
review period required by CEQA, and that comments received after
the expiration of the public comment and review period shall not
become part of the record of proceedings. This bill died in the
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources.
SB 195 (Cannella, 2011) would have provided that CEQA does not
require a public agency to consider written materials submitted
after the close of the public comment period unless those
materials address specified matters. The bill would also have
provided that if a lead agency elects not to consider written
materials submitted after the close of the public comment
period, the lead agency is not required to respond to that
written material, and that written material shall not be raised
in an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void,
or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency on the grounds
of noncompliance with CEQA. This bill died in the Senate
Committee on Rules.
SB 292 (Padilla, Ch. 353, Stats. 2011) established specified
administrative and judicial review procedures for review of the
EIR and public agency approvals granted for a project related to
the development of a stadium in the City of Los Angeles.
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageP of?
SB 683 (Correa, 2011) would have amended CEQA's exhaustion
requirement to preclude an action or proceeding to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul the acts or decisions of a
public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with CEQA unless
the alleged grounds of noncompliance were first presented to the
public agency during the public comment period or prior to the
close of the public hearing on the project before the filing,
rather than issuance, of the notice of determination. This bill
was subsequently amended to address a different subject.
AB 900 (Buchanan, Ch. 354, Stats. 2011), the Jobs and Economic
Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011,
established specified administrative and judicial review
procedures for the review of the EIR and public agency approvals
granted for designated residential, retail, commercial, sports,
cultural, entertainment, or recreational use projects, or clean
renewable energy or clean energy manufacturing projects.
SB 1456 (Simitian, Ch. 496, Stats. 2010) added the requirement
that an organization formed after the approval of a project may
bring an action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside,
void, or annul the acts or decisions of a public agency on the
grounds of noncompliance with CEQA if a member of that
organization presented to the public agency orally or in writing
the alleged grounds for noncompliance during the public comment
period or prior to the close of the public hearing on the
project before the issuance of the notice of determination.
SB 476 (Correa, 2009) would have amended CEQA's exhaustion
requirement in a manner substantially similar to that proposed
in SB 683 (Correa, 2011). This bill died in the Assembly
Committee on Natural Resources.
SB 1191 (Hollingsworth, 2006) would have amended CEQA's
exhaustion requirement in a manner substantially similar to that
proposed in this bill (SB 1451 (Hill)) as part of a broader set
of changes to CEQA. SB 1191 died in the Senate Committee on
Environmental Quality.
SB 1141 (Poochigian, 2001) would have expressly applied CEQA's
exhaustion requirement to the California Attorney General. This
bill died in the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
SB 919 (Dills, Ch. 1131, Stats. 1993) enacted CEQA's exhaustion
requirement by prohibiting the bringing of an action or
SB 1451 (Hill and Roth)
PageQ of?
proceeding under the act unless the alleged grounds for
noncompliance with the act were presented to the public agency,
and unless the person bringing the action or proceeding objected
during the public comment period, or prior to the close of the
public hearing on the project.
Prior Vote : Senate Committee on Environmental Quality (Ayes 4,
Noes 1)
**************